Wednesday, January 01, 2014

We Need to Broaden Our Political Appeal

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

One of the tactics the jews use to defeat us politically is to employ agent provocateurs who demand we debate divisive issues and argue over semantics and politically irrelevant issues, and thereby direct our energies against attacking ourselves instead of our enemies. The agent provocateurs often enunciate extreme, immature and/or criminal positions to embarrass the target group politically and lead it into alienation and criminal prosecution.

Our approach to broadening our political appeal has hitherto been naive and largely ineffective. I suggest we create a hierarchical approach to politics and to formulating a political party. I recommend we categorize politics into three arenas, Model Politics, Issues Politics and Emotional Politics.


Model Politics represents the most fundamental aspects of political power. It focuses on the structure and organization of society, business, education, government and international relations. The communists have long dominated the discussion of Model Politics, either directly, or through front political movements including the libertarians. The communists attempt to brow beat their opponents and heavily employ jargon and dogma to discourage normal people from engaging in this level of politics. Our best minds are needed to formulate and express our Model Politics. It will be their duty to win over the intellectuals and opinion shapers to our cause. Communist and libertarian ideologies have been discredited by centuries of historical fact, so the task is not so formidable or daunting as it may appear to some.


Issues Politics focuses on winning power by controlling policy. Republican Conservatives and Liberal non-White advocacy groups have long dominated this arena. Where will the dollars go, what legislation will be enacted, what party platform will dominate, are among the many issues raised and debated in issues politics. Our people who are good at networking and enjoy social interaction should employ their talents in advocating our Issues Politics. The goal here is to seem as reasonable and unbiased as possible, while advocating for our policies. We need people who are good demonstrating to others what is in their personal best interests, people who can sell our party.


Emotional Politics is the arena where demagogues and rabble rousers duke it out for popular support. Obama is a classic demagogue who won the US Presidency on the empty slogan, "Change!" Christian Zionists and Egalitarians are very susceptible to emotional politics, and those of above average intelligence (though not genius level intelligence) are often the most prone to be persuaded by such tactics as neurolinguistic programming. Emotional Politics should be dominated by those most disposable to the cause, because it is often governed by situational ethics and those who believe that the end justifies the means. For example, persons who feel no moral distress when promoting Tila Tequila while concurrently and concomitantly condemning "Pussy Riot" are good at Emotional Politics, but are prone to becoming liabilities to the cause due to the fickle nature of politics and the long memories of our foes. These people will be good at creating divisions among our enemies, and by winning us support through shock value and common sense propaganda, and other like means. Though many, myself included, find the naked hypocrisy distasteful, it is a fact that masses are often moved by such things. We would be foolish to be so snobbish as to disavow the reality and necessity of Emotional Politics and the need to have it serve us, rather than defeat us as our survival becomes increasingly threatened.


I can't recall what he called it, but I think it was Lenin who proposed that communists bear no fundamental loyalty to any political views until victory is achieved, meaning that they should employ whatever social construct serves their interest in achieving victory and power. For example, advocating gun control when it serves their interests, but advocating the right to keep and bear arms when that betters suits their needs. We are indeed forced to compete with a system that will not match our Model Politics. As such, we will have to a greater or lesser extent play by its rules. This is not an easily resolved crisis. For example, where the jews impose "hate crimes" laws on us, should we turn the tables on them and try to use the courts to prosecute them for the conduct they have proscribed, while at the same time advocating for our Model Politics which recognizes the Unconstitutional nature of "hate crimes" legislation? Should we use civil rights legislation to enforce our rights to freedom of speech and equal access to all means of communication, while concurrently and concomitantly advocating our Model Politics that would restore the Constitutional supremacy of Whites in America?

We need to develop a moral code that will define and support our conduct. What would be considered brute murder in civil society is considered valor in war. This is one of the reasons I advocate for unabashed White Supremacy, which fosters a moral code that provides for our defense and rise to power.

These concepts of mine are admittedly in their infancy and will evolve over time and through experience. I toss them out to the winds so that they may churn them and separate the chaff from the grain.